Kerala High Court
Lilly Thomas vs Radhakrishnan on 8 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1943
MACA.No.2163 OF 2013
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1039/2010 DATED 31-05-2013 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL PALA
APPELLANT:
1 LILLY THOMAS
W/O.LATE THOMAS, PALACKALODIYIL HOUSE,
VALLIPADAVIL, UZHAVOOR EAST P.O.,
MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
2 LINCE MON
S/O.LATE THOMAS, PALACKALODIYIL HOUSE,
VALLIPADAVIL, UZHAVOOR EAST P.O.,
MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
3 PRINCE
S/O.LATE THOMAS, PALACKALODIYIL HOUSE,
VALLIPADAVIL, UZHAVOOR EAST P.O.,
MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR)
RESPONDENTS:
1 RADHAKRISHNAN
S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, THOTTUCHIRAYIL HOUSE,
ACHINAKAM BHAGOM, KUDAVECHOOR KARA,
VECHOOR VILLAGE, PIN-686744.
2 BAIJU P.K.
S/O.KARUNAKARAN, PARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERPUNKAL P.O.,
MEENACHIL, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686584.
3 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
KOTTAYAM, PIN-686101.
R1, R3 BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.04.2021, ALONG WITH MACA.2222/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A. Nos. 2163 & 2222 of 2013
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1943
MACA.No.2222 OF 2013
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 46/2011 DATED 31-05-2013 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL PALA
APPELLANTS:
1 YESUDAS
S/O.ASHIRWAD, 128, CHINNAR ESTATE LAYAM,
CHINNAR KARA, ELAPPARA VILLAGE,
IDUKKI DISTRICT.
2 VANITHA VANAJA
W/O.YESUDAS, 128, CHINNAR ESTATE LAYAM, CHINNAR
KARA, ELAPPARA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR)
RESPONDENTS:
1 RADHAKRISHNAN
S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, THOTTUCHIRAYIL HOUSE,
ACHINAKAM BHAGOM, KUDAVECHOOR KARA,
VECHOOR VILLAGE, PIN - 686 144.
2 BAIJU P.K.
S/O.KARUNAKARAN, PARAMBIL HOUSE,
CHERPUNKAL P.O., MEENACHIL,
KOTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 584.
3 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 101.
R1, R3 BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 08.04.2021, ALONG WITH MACA.2163/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A. Nos. 2163 & 2222 of 2013
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
========================
M.A.C.A. Nos. 2163 & 2222 of 2013,
========================
Dated this the 8th day of April 2021
JUDGMENT
These two appeals are connected and therefore, I am
disposing these two appeals by a common judgment.
M.A.C.A No. 2163/2013 is filed by the petitioners in
O.P(M.V) No. 1039/2010 and MACA No. 2222/2013 is filed
by the petitioners in OP (MV) No. 46/2011 respectively on
the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala.
(Hereinafter parties are mentioned in accordance to their
rank before the Tribunal) The above claim petitions were
disposed of along with OP (MV) Nos. 184/2011 and
730/2011.
2. The short facts are like this:-
The deceased as well as the petitioners in OP (MV)
Nos. 184/2011 and 730/2011 were travelling in a stage
M.A.C.A. Nos. 2163 & 2222 of 2013
carriage bus bearing registration No. KL 5/X-3355
through Cherthala -Kottayam Public road. The first
respondent was driving the bus. According to the
petitioners, the first respondent was driving the bus in a
rash and negligent manner. When the bus reached
Thazhathangadi, it hit on an electric post and fell down
into the Meenachil river. As a result of it, ten persons died
in the accident. Several passengers in the bus sustained
injuries. According to the petitioners, the accident
occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent
driver of the bus. The second respondent is the owner and
third respondent is the insurer of the offending bus. The
petitioners claimed compensation from the respondents.
3. To substantiate the case Exhibits A1 to A23
were marked on the side of the petitioners. Two witnesses
were examined on the side of petitioners as PW1 and
PW2. After going through the evidence and documents,
the Tribunal allowed the petitions in part. The petitioners
in OP(MV) No. 1039/2010 is allowed to realise an amount
M.A.C.A. Nos. 2163 & 2222 of 2013
of Rs.5,68,000/- with interest. The petitioners in OP (MV)
No. 46/2011 is allowed to realise an amount of
Rs.4,50,000/- with interest. Aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation these two appeals are filed by the
petitioners.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that, the compensation amount awarded by the
Tribunal is too low considering the facts and
circumstances of the case. The learned counsel for the 3 rd
respondent submitted that, the Tribunal based on the
available evidence awarded the compensation and there
is nothing to inferfere with the same.
6. I will consider these two appeals separately.
MACA No. 2163/2013
7. In this case, the deceased was aged 51 years and
he was a rubber tapper. The Tribunal fixed the monthly
income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-. The petitioners
M.A.C.A. Nos. 2163 & 2222 of 2013
claimed that the deceased was getting an amount of
Rs.8,000/-. The accident in this case occurred on
23.03.2010. If the principle laid down by the Apex Court
in Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal
Sundaram [2011(13) SCC 236] is taken as basis, I
think an amount of Rs. 7,500/- can be fixed as monthly
income. Even a coolie will get an amount of Rs.4,500/- in
the year 2004, in the light of the observations in
Ramachandrappa's case (Supra). Moreover, 10%
increase is to be given to the monthly income towards the
future prospectus. Then the amount will be Rs.8,250/-.
Based on the above monthly income the dependency
compensation is to be reassessed in the following
manner:-
Rs. 8,250x12x11x2/3=7,26,000/-
8. An amount of Rs.5,28,000/- is already given by
the tribunal and that is to be deducted from the above
amount. The balance amount will be Rs.1,98,000/-
(Rs. 7,26,000-5,28,000=1,98,000/-).
M.A.C.A. Nos. 2163 & 2222 of 2013
9. The Tribunal awarded no amount to damage to
clothing. The petitioners are entitled Rs.500/- in that
head. Towards funeral expense only an amount of
Rs.10,000/- is awarded. The petitioners are entitled an
additional amount of Rs.5,000/-. Towards loss of estate,
the tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.5,000/-. The
petitioners are entitled an additional amount of
Rs.10,000/- in that head also. The petitioners are the
wife and children of the deceased. In the light of the
decision of the Apex Court in Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram &
Others.[(2018) 18 SCC 130], the petitioners are
entitled an amount of Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of
consortium. The tribunal awarded an amount of
Rs.5,000/- towards loss of love and affection and another
Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1 st
petitioner. These amounts are to be deducted from the
above amount. Therefore, the balance amount will be
Rs. 1,05,000/- (Rs.40,000X3=Rs.1,20,000-15,000 =
M.A.C.A. Nos. 2163 & 2222 of 2013
1,05,000/-).
10. Therefore, the petitioners in O.P(M.V)
No.1039/2010 is entitled enhanced compensation in the
following manner;
Loss of dependency : Rs. 1,98,000/-
Damage to clothing : Rs. 500/-
Funeral expense : Rs.5,000/-
Loss of estate : Rs.10,000/-
Loss of consortium : Rs.1,05,000/-
-----------------------
Total Rs.3,18,500/-
=============
11. The petitioners are entitled interest at the rate
of 7.5% p.a for the enhanced compensation from the date
of application till realisation.
MACA No. 2222/2013
12. In this case, the deceased was working as nurse
and she was aged 20 years. According to the petitioners
the deceased was working in a private hospital at
M.A.C.A. Nos. 2163 & 2222 of 2013
Kottayam. Ext.A10 is the certificate issued by the medical
director of that hospital in which it is stated that the
deceased was getting an amount of Rs.5,000/- as a
trainee and she was offered an amount of Rs.8,000/- as
salary after completing the training period. But Ext.A10 is
not proved in a manner known to law. But, it is a fact that
the deceased was a nurse and she had sufficient
qualification as evident by Ext.A9. In such circumstances,
taking the principle laid down by the Apex Court in
Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram
[2011(13) SCC 236 this Court can safely fix the monthly
income as Rs. 7,500/-. Moreover, towards future
prospectus 40% is to be added to the monthly income.
Then the amount will be Rs.10,500/- (7500+3000). Based
on the same, the compensation for dependency is to be
reassessed in the following manner;
Rs.10,500 X 12 X 18 X 1/2 = Rs.11,34,000/-
13. An amount of Rs.4,20,000/- is already given by
the tribunal and that is to be deducted from the above
M.A.C.A. Nos. 2163 & 2222 of 2013
amount. The balance amount will be Rs.7,14,000/-
(Rs.11,34,000-4,20,000=7,14,000). Towards damage to
clothing no amount is awarded by the Tribunal. The
petitioners are entitled an amount of Rs.500/- in that
head. Towards funeral expense only an amount of
Rs.10,000/- is awarded. The petitioners are entitled an
amount of Rs.5,000/- in that head. Towards loss of
estate, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of
Rs.5,000/-. The petitioners are entitled another amount of
Rs.10,000/- in that head also. Towards love and
affection, the tribunal awarded only an amount of
Rs.5,000/-. The petitioners are the parents of the
deceased. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram
Alias Chuhru Ram & Others.[(2018) 18 SCC 130],
petitioners are entitled an amount of Rs. 40,000/- each
towards loss of consortium (Rs.40,000X2=Rs.80,000/-).
The tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.5,000/- which
is to be deducted from the above amount. Then the
M.A.C.A. Nos. 2163 & 2222 of 2013
balance amount will be Rs.75,000/- (Rs. 80,000-
5,000=75,000/-)
14. Therefore, the petitioners in O.P(M.V) No.
46/2011 is entitled an enhanced compensation in the
following manner;
Dependency compensation : Rs. 7,14,000/-
Damage to clothing : Rs. 500/-
Funeral expense : Rs.5,000/-
Loss of estate : Rs.10,000/-
Loss of consortium : Rs.75,000/-
------------------
Total Rs.8,04,500/-
==========
15. The petitioners are entitled interest at the rate
of 7.5% p.a for the enhanced compensation from the date
of application till realisation.
Therefore, these appeals are allowed in part. The
impugned award is modified to the effect that the
appellants in MACA No. 2163/2013 are entitled an
M.A.C.A. Nos. 2163 & 2222 of 2013
enhanced compensation of Rs.3,18,500/- and the
appellants in MACA No. 2222/2013 are entitled an
enhanced compensation of Rs.8,04,500/- respectively
with interest @ 7.5% p.a from the date of application till
realisation. The 3rd respondent is directed to pay the
enhanced compensation with interest to the petitioners.
(Sd/-)
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
LU
